Low-A: Pitching Leaders: IP

Triple-A	Triple-A West	Triple-A East
Double-A	Double-A Central	Double-A Northeast	Double-A South
High-A	High-A West	High-A Central	High-A East
Low-A	Low-A West	Low-A Southeast	Low-A East

Batting	Pitching

Rank	Pitcher	Age	Team	Org	G	GS	IP	ERA	FIP	xFIP	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	BABIP	HR/FB	GB%	Swing%	Contact%	F-Strike%	SwStr%	CStr%	CSW%
1	Carson Ragsdale	25.9	San Jose	SF	25	25	120.0	4.80	3.53	3.01	12.9	3.6	1.0	.361	14.3%	38%	46.6%	67.9%	58.9%	15.0%	19.4%	34.4%
2	Kyle Harrison	22.7	San Jose	SF	24	24	105.0	3.77	2.82	3.12	14.0	4.5	0.3	.383	4.9%	50%	45.2%	61.4%	57.5%	17.5%	16.5%	34.0%
3	John Swanda	25.1	Inland Empire	LAA	20	15	104.3	5.43	4.50	3.69	7.9	2.8	1.1	.293	21.7%	57%	47.9%	74.3%	57.1%	12.3%	17.0%	29.4%
4	Nicholas Krauth	24.6	Down East	TEX	20	20	102.7	4.65	4.54	4.10	6.9	2.5	1.0	.298	16.7%	52%	52.1%	77.4%	57.5%	11.8%	12.6%	24.3%
4	William Jensen	26.6	San Jose	SF	23	19	102.7	3.94	3.79	3.32	9.6	2.2	1.1	.305	14.0%	38%	52.2%	67.4%	58.1%	17.0%	13.5%	30.5%
6	Seth Johnson	25.6	Charleston	TB	24	17	100.3	3.95	3.35	3.15	10.9	3.0	0.7	.339	13.1%	48%	50.0%	70.9%	56.2%	14.5%	14.8%	29.4%
7	Samuel Carlson	25.4	Modesto	SEA	19	19	100.0	6.12	3.99	4.01	10.1	4.0	0.6	.357	10.1%	47%	45.2%	71.6%	52.8%	12.9%	16.4%	29.3%
8	Prelander Berroa	24.0	San Jose	SF	24	24	99.3	4.62	4.31	3.39	12.2	4.8	1.2	.313	18.3%	39%	43.6%	67.2%	52.7%	14.3%	17.2%	31.5%
9	Joseph Estes	22.5	Augusta	ATL	20	20	99.0	3.55	2.93	2.88	11.5	2.6	0.6	.261	10.1%	33%	50.8%	68.4%	64.2%	16.1%	16.8%	32.9%
10	Manuel Espinoza	23.4	Myrtle Beach	CHC	22	22	98.7	6.02	5.03	3.90	8.4	2.4	1.6	.326	18.8%	35%	51.0%	77.5%	61.1%	11.5%	14.5%	26.0%
10	Carlos Guzman	25.9	Lakeland	DET	23	22	98.7	5.20	4.31	4.17	9.3	4.2	0.8	.362	11.1%	42%	46.8%	73.9%	56.6%	12.2%	16.6%	28.8%
12	Karlo Seijas	23.6	Fredericksburg	WSH	22	22	97.0	7.89	5.08	4.39	7.6	2.7	1.5	.342	15.2%	28%	49.9%	75.7%	57.8%	12.1%	12.8%	24.9%
13	Naswell Paulino	24.0	Dunedin	TOR	23	23	96.7	4.56	4.42	4.36	10.1	5.3	0.7	.275	10.1%	37%	46.5%	71.1%	54.9%	13.4%	14.1%	27.5%
14	Junior Santos	22.7	St. Lucie	NYM	21	16	96.3	5.61	4.48	4.37	7.4	3.6	0.7	.345	11.8%	49%	48.0%	80.1%	58.3%	9.6%	13.4%	23.0%
14	Adrian Alcantara	24.7	Columbia	KC	24	20	96.3	6.26	5.34	3.95	9.2	2.8	1.7	.315	20.9%	41%	47.7%	72.5%	52.8%	13.1%	14.9%	28.0%
16	Jose Salvador	24.6	Inland Empire	LAA	20	17	96.0	6.09	4.22	3.85	10.8	4.4	0.9	.370	13.9%	38%	43.6%	66.6%	51.9%	14.5%	16.1%	30.7%
16	Adrian Florencio	25.5	Bradenton	PIT	20	19	96.0	3.38	3.13	3.18	11.2	2.8	0.6	.283	10.9%	39%	49.1%	68.5%	52.4%	15.5%	15.4%	30.8%
18	Josias De Los Santos	24.7	Modesto	SEA	20	20	95.7	6.49	4.97	5.05	8.5	6.6	0.7	.342	9.7%	40%	43.4%	73.9%	47.1%	11.3%	13.2%	24.5%
19	Nicholas Davila	25.4	Lakeland	DET	27	13	94.0	4.31	3.77	3.85	9.5	3.4	0.6	.317	9.2%	41%	49.2%	74.1%	57.1%	12.7%	16.3%	29.0%
20	Luis Ortiz	25.2	Bradenton	PIT	23	20	93.7	4.42	2.96	2.91	11.7	2.9	0.6	.346	13.3%	48%	47.7%	65.0%	52.6%	16.7%	16.4%	33.1%
21	Kendall Williams	23.7	Rancho Cucamonga	LAD	23	19	93.0	6.19	4.53	3.54	8.4	2.1	1.4	.327	21.5%	53%	54.6%	68.1%	60.6%	17.4%	12.6%	30.1%
22	Christopher Mokma	23.2	Jupiter	MIA	21	21	92.7	7.19	5.51	4.35	7.6	2.7	1.7	.358	20.2%	39%	51.3%	77.0%	56.3%	11.8%	12.8%	24.6%
23	Richard Gallardo	22.6	Myrtle Beach	CHC	21	21	91.3	5.22	4.29	4.08	7.4	3.2	0.8	.302	17.4%	52%	48.6%	81.5%	55.2%	9.0%	15.0%	23.9%
24	Julio Goff	24.3	Inland Empire	LAA	22	9	90.7	5.26	4.12	4.27	7.8	3.7	0.6	.284	7.8%	35%	46.0%	72.3%	52.9%	12.8%	15.7%	28.5%
25	Matthew Givin	24.9	Jupiter	MIA	19	14	90.0	4.70	4.55	4.42	7.4	3.7	0.8	.306	12.9%	43%	48.2%	74.5%	54.8%	12.3%	12.9%	25.2%
26	Jordan Jones	26.6	Lynchburg	CLE	20	20	89.7	5.22	4.01	4.37	8.2	4.3	0.5	.345	7.1%	36%	49.0%	70.9%	53.2%	14.3%	12.6%	26.9%
27	Shane Drohan	25.3	Salem	BOS	23	23	89.0	4.45	3.70	4.31	8.7	4.6	0.3	.321	5.7%	34%	46.4%	75.3%	52.3%	11.4%	13.5%	24.9%
28	Rodney Theophile	24.6	Fredericksburg	WSH	22	22	88.7	7.41	4.93	4.58	8.5	4.8	0.9	.330	14.5%	48%	48.0%	72.0%	52.0%	13.5%	13.5%	26.9%
29	Michael Cuevas	22.8	Fredericksburg	WSH	20	17	88.3	5.60	4.16	3.86	8.2	2.9	0.8	.295	15.4%	53%	47.5%	72.0%	55.0%	13.3%	15.8%	29.1%
29	Jaime Arias-Bautista	25.3	Lynchburg	CLE	23	9	88.3	4.08	3.41	2.54	11.3	1.5	1.2	.266	21.1%	37%	53.4%	69.5%	59.8%	16.3%	15.9%	32.2%